This order rejects two applications for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the respondent's FBI preceded the petitioner's cross-case and thus could not be treated as a cross-case to claim bail priority, rejecting the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010142682020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2812/2020
MAMATAZ AHMED TALUKDAR @ BAPPI S/O NUR UDDIN TALUKDAR, R/O BORA RAMPUR PT.I, P.O. DOLU, P.S. BORKHOLA, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788111
VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : AB/3201/2020
NAJIM KHAN Address:S/O. ASHOK NABI KHAN VILL. DOLOO CHA BAGHAN P.S. BORKHOLA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788010. VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM Address:REP. BY PP ASSSAM.
-----------Advocate for : MR. A S TAPADER Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM: Advocate appearing for respectively.
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
:: O R D E R ::
17-11-2020
Both these applications are taken up together for disposal.
By way of these applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., the petitioners, namely, Mamataz Ahmed Talukdar @ Bappi and Najim Khan have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Borkhola Police Station Case No.345/2019, registered under Sections 294/307/353/379/34 of IPC (Corresponding to GR Case No. 6469/2019) and Borkhola Police Station Case No.356/2019 registered under Sections 147/148/447/448/294/353/427/379 of IPC (Corresponding to GR Case No. 6610/2019)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam also perused the case diary and the documents annexed.
This Court on earlier occasion has rejected the bail prayer by order dated 04.05.2020 after considering the case diary as well as the status report. Subsequently, the present application has been filed on the ground that the petitioner side has also filed the cross case which has been registered as Borkhola PS Case No. 345/2019 and has ended at charge-sheet.
In view of such submission, this Court called for the case diary of both the cases and it is found that the FIR that was filed from the petitioner’s side was subsequent to the FIR filed by the present FIR. The present FIR was filed on 06.12.2019 whereas subsequent FIR was filed on 13.12.2019 referring to another incident and in that view of the matter that cannot be treated as a cross case. On the other hand, case diary pertaining to the present case reflect serious involvement of the accused petitioner who by way of showing threat and force to the public servant/Forest Officials has illegally transported the stones (loaded in trucks) in regular manner by obstructing/ Officers on duty.
There being no subsistence of the subsequent bail applications, both the petitions are rejected.
In terms of the above, both these petitions stands disposed of.
Page No.# 3/3
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bail application satisfies the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in cases of obstruction of public servants and IPC offences.
Whether a cross-case filed by the petitioner side constitutes a valid ground for granting bail when the present FIR preceded it.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamataz Ahmed Talukdar
Najim Khan
The State of Assam
Rumi Kumari Phukan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
